brilliant, martin bashir. good afternoon, it's friday april the 5th and the president is going down the road of compromise. too bad there's a road block right ahead. >> the white house is putting pen to paper when it comes to president obama's ideas for a fiscal compromise. >> and he's ready to cut entitlements. >> nearly 80% of the savings would come through spending cuts. >> now this is a real budget. >> what he proposes looks like a compromise. >> the revenue issue is now closed. >> the president got his tax hikes on january 1st. the president counted his tax hikes. revenue discussion is over. discussion about revenue, in my view, is over. >> so we don't trust people like you? >> there was one instance where it wasn't two seconds and allowed 11 kids to get out of a classroom. >> 11 children had the chance to escape as that guy reloaded. >> the criminals reason going to have less. one round in the hand of someone that's going to do horror is too

many. >> but how to you know, wayne? >> you can change magazine clips in a second. there's no evidence that, you know, that anything would have changed. >> allowed 11 kids to get out of the classroom. >> that -- that -- good afternoon. we begin as the economy retakes center stage with challenges from debt to growth to jobs. all highlights in today's developments. first, there was the jobs report. described in the very best terms as disappointing. just 88,000 new jobs added. the slowest growth since last june. and while the jobless rate trickled down to 7.6%, that was because more people dropped out of the labor force. that insipid report is even worse news for more than 4 million long-term unemployed, as benefits for them are now shrinking, which brings us to

some essential questions of budget priorities and a political risk by the president as he prepares to release the white house budget. and a sneak peek is showing that instead of a pie in the sky wish list of democratic objectives, the president has actually chosen to offer a serious effort at, wait for it, compromise. to entice republicans, the president's offering cuts to social security by way of cost of living adjustments. cuts to medicare, largely to providers. to please democrats, he proposes higher payroll taxes for higher earners. a tobacco tax to pay for universal pre-kindergarten care, and increased informati e e ed spending. so a little something for everyone, right? >> he is coming up with cuts, he is coming up with changes that, again, the democrats are not excited about, but let's see what the overall package is.

>> as far as a budget is concerned, you know, i am in a wait and see mode as to whether this white house is very serious about really coming together to solve this problem. >> okay. democrats are not excited. republicans are skeptical. so what is the president trying to get out of this? well, let's get right to our guests. congressman peter welsh is a democrat from vermont. with us from dartmouth, new hampshire. in washington, msnbc political analyst, ezra klein of the "washington post." and with me here in new york, lehigh university professor, james peterson. congressman, if i can start with you, reports of the president's plan had barely been out for a new york minute when speaker boehner issued a statement and i'm quoting the great man. "if the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there's no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes. that's no way to lead and move the country forward." compromise on the table. boehner treats it with contempt. why am i not surprised?

>> well, that's exactly right. i mean, the president has put on the table chain cpi, and that's a policy i disagree with. most democrats are strongly in disagreement with it. i think tit's a tactic the whit house is using somewhat wisely. this is a battle whether we're going to replace a dumb and increasingly damaging see sequester with something that's balanced and includes revenues. the tactic demonstrates the president's willingness to take on his own party. there's going to be a battle for who is going to be seen as obstructionist and who is seen as trying to solve the problem. so with the reaction of the republicans, where you're not hearing a whisper of willingness to put -- >> so congress whman, what you' saying is in effect the president is the adult in the room trying to act in a balanced and measured manner, yet he's confronted by speaker boehner who treats the verycontempt, im?

>> that's more or less right. these guys do not want to put anything on the table that has the whiff of revenue on it. and what's so -- boehner's got a tough job. the tea party wing of his party is the majority. they have actually backed away from what has been a decades-long commitment to a strong military with across the board sequester cuts which they're willing to take if that's what it takes to shrink government. so he's in a bind, but his unwillingness to actually even engage the president, when the president is doing something that is creating a firestorm among his own party, i think is an indication to the american people that obstructionism is going to be the rule of the day on the republican side. >> professor peterson, to that point, the progressive caucus has issued a statement and i'm quoting. "republicans have been trying to dismantle social security ever since president roosevelt proposed it during great depression. we should not try to bargain for their goodwill with policies that hurt our seniors."

and it would hurt seniors, wouldn't it? >> absolutely. >> chain cpi? >> absolutely. if you know seniors intimately, you know they're on fixed incomes which means any sort of fluctuation in the prices of milk or price of gas, electricity or utilities can have reprehensible effects on their personal familial budgets. we have different acronyms, government terminology. that doesn't get to the specifics of the very, very lived realities of out seniors who you and i know both contribute things to our society that are sometimes intangible. >> indeed. ezra, you write in your column today about the fear among progressives that the president starting from the middle could result in a compromise that ends up far to the right. is that a justifiable concern? >> i think so. so, look, go back to the history here. these are not new compromises that are on the table. to be fair to the white house, this compromise bill has been on their website for months now. >> i've read it myself. i agree. >> and it's right there.

so but this is the third iteration of their package in the obama/boehner talks. so they went through one compromise with boehner then the another. and then that is now going to be the starting point. but the thing that will stay with liberals here is john boehner. speaker john boehner cannot take yes for an answer. he wasn't able to do it in 2011, something republicans now quite regret. he wasn't able to do it in late 2012. now he's come out already and said basically, no, i'm sorry, i can't do anything on taxes no matter what you give me. and so here's what happens now. the white house looks like they're coming out and offering a compromise. they look like they are trying to get something to done to replace a sequester. they're having dinners with republican senators. here's boehner before actually even seeing the whole budget who says absolutely not. and this for the republican party is very, very, very bad politics. because they look like they are standing in the way of any kind of deal. >> he's right. >> he is. at the end of the day, happen this president proved that he's willing to compromise enough? when you look over the course of the first term and even the

beginning of the second term, he's compromised on a number of different issues, tried to move toward the right or middle on a number of different issues. i think the tobacco tax education reform piece of it is a newer piece of this particular iteration of it. in general for this to be dismissed outright to me suggests we can't keep bumping our head up against the wall of compromise, especially when we're sacrificing lives and lived realities of people who are really, really important i think in our society. >> absolutely. the president's plan is serious about deficit reduction as you know. nearly 80% of the president's savings comes through spending cuts, producing $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. $4.3 trillion in total deficit reduction since 2010. the fact that republicans reject it proves they're not serious about what they claim is their most passionate purpose which is deficit reduction. >> well, that's exactly right. and also, you know, the ryan budget has, its goal is deficit reduction or elimination in ten years.

it won't accomplish -- >> congressman, let's not even reference that pile of cack. that wouldn't achieve anything. >> that's right. the point is the budget has to deal with income inequality. the shrinking middle class. the crumbling infrastructure. >> that's right. >> the weakening educational system we have in this country. >> that's right. >> and the president is reiterating that over and over again, and actually there's a struggle here about whether the budget is going to be used as something as proactive in pro-growth, with some acknowledgements that the stronger we can make the middle class, the more jobs we can create, the more deficit reduction we're going to accomplish. these guys essentially think that england in usausterity is e road to prosperity. there's no evidence whatsoever for that. the second goal for them, and really adamant on this, is they want to shrink government. so any cut, even if it's in their favored military programs, will help them achieve their goal. >> it's not about deficit reduction at all.

ezra, i have to recall these issues got a great deal of attention during the 2012 campaign. you, yourself, played a significant role on this network, examining the proposals and the proposal of the president. as rehearsed before the electorate, before the election. well, guess what? he was re-elected. but now it's as if republicans have totally written that into history. that didn't happen. and now it's as if we're having a discussion from a new position. is that right? >> well, republicans don't -- they keep the house, right? i mean, it is a fact that democrats won another 1.5 million votes over republicans at the house of representatives, but it is also simultaneously the fact the republicans hold power there so they do have the ability to block most anything. what i think is fascinating about the republican party right now on that particular dimension is that i think they're entering something of a cycle. as they become a smaller party after an election like that. as their majority shrinks, as they become somewhat more in hoc

to the more hardcore uncompromising elements of the coalition. it becomes harder for boehner to get some kind of deal. not easier. moderate republicans are getting knocked off. he becomes more afraid. that forces him to go further to right, puts him further out of the mainstream. makes it harder for them to win future elections. these, again, moves they're making don't make a ton of political sense but they make internal conference sense for john boehner whose position is not that strong in a party that is increasingly quite afraid and defensive about its long-term political survival and long-term prospects. in that exact way i think their response to the election has been to retrench particularly on a lot f of these fiscal issues and say we can't get anything done so we'll allow nothing to get done. >> ezra klein, congressman peter walsh, professor -- >> i think -- >> very quickly, sir. >> i think ezra's right. the republicans have lost confidence in growth as an economic option. >> well, they keep telling us otherwise. there we have it. congressman peter welsh,

professor james peterson, ezra klein. thank you all. wayne lapierre has no answer as to why 11 beautiful little children are still alive today. stay with us. i guess i shouldn't be surprised. fox's brand. they represent the right. much the same way that msnbc represents the nearsighted. anncn s victims are... without homes tonight. girl: first, i saw it on cable. then i read about it online. i found out how to help. i downloaded the info. i spoke up... and told my friends... and they told their friends... and together, we made a difference. anncr: and tornado relief has been pouring in from... across the country. girl: we might be hundreds of miles apart... but because we're connected, it's like we're all neighbors.

the day building a play set begins with a surprise twinge of back pain... and a choice. take up to 4 advil in a day or 2 aleve for all day relief. [ male announcer ] that's handy. ♪ departure. hertz gold plus rewards also offers ereturn-- our fastest way to return your car. just note your mileage and zap ! you're outta there ! we'll e-mail your receipt in a flash, too. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz.

♪ ♪ no two people have the same financial goals. pnc works with you to understand yours and help plan for your retirement. visit a branch or call now for your personal retirement review.

one of the nra's more exasperating claims is that limiting the size of magazine clips on assault rifles wouldn't work. but a shooter like adam lanza could kill just as many children no matter how many times he had

to reload. because a good shooter can change a clip in just two seconds. well, sir, the parents of newtown aren't buying that. for one. >> there was one instance where it wasn't two seconds and it allowed 11 kids to get out of the classroom. >> tell me about that. >> it's just a simple arithmetic. if you have to change magazines 15 times instead of 5 times, you have 3 times as many incidences where something could jam, something could be bobbled. you just increase the time for intervention, increase the timeframe where the kids can get out. there's 11 kids out there today that are still running around on the playground pretty much now at lunchtime. >> who escaped from these classrooms. >> right. >> exactly right. it is just simple arithmetic. that clip, incidentally, was played for the nra's wayne lapierre thursday on fox news. actually he evaded the question, but to credit of fox news's meagan kelly, she persisted and

repeatedly asked, what does he say to those 11 children alive today? repeatedly, as you'd expect, he fell back on the same tired talking points. >> meagan, people that know guns, you can change magazine clips in a second. there's no evidence that, you know, that anything would have changed. i mean, the fact is if you're a homeowner, though, and you have someone coming through your door in the middle of the night, why should you be limited to three rounds or four rounds like mayor bloomberg wants to do? >> joining us now is karen finney, a former dnc communications director, and soon to be a colleague/host here at msnbc, and julian epstein, a democratic strategist. welcome to you both. karen, he just doesn't have an answer, does he? he just does not have an answer to that question about limiting magazine clips, does he? >> no, no, he doesn't. that's why he threw in, you know, bloomberg, right? because that's one of those shiny objects for conservatives, you know. he clearly doesn't have an answer. but also the answer that he

would give you is wrong. i mean, we know from a number of these horrible incidents that have cured over the last few years, we've heard incident after incident that it was when people were having to change the magazines, that's when they were able to be, you know, jumped on by some people in the crowd. i think that was what happened with gabby giffords. >> it is. >> there's a young man from aurora will tell you because there was a jam, that actually saved his life. so the facts don't, once again, bear out any shred of truth in anything that wayne lapierre is saying. >> julian, lapierre's claim is obviously false. why do the claims appear to be working to thwart gun legislation that would limit magazine capacity? even though he spouts outright untruths, it's very effective. >> i don't think it's effective. i think as i said -- >> it's not effective? >> no. i think congress is a lagging indicator here. i think most people don't believe it. most people want limits on magazines and assault weapons. look, as karen pointed out,

lapierre should tell that to the parents of christine dtaylor green in tucson, arizona. loughner was ultimately stopped when he had to reload his glock weapon. tell that to parents in newtown, according to the police reports, 11, as you pointed out, escaped when the gunman there had to reload his weapon. the difference and the reason why clips and assault weapons are so important is because it takes small-scale assaults and turns them into large-scale massac massacres. i think most people understand that and i think that is why we're looking at the beginning of a national movement not just on background checks, because we pointed out background checks wouldn't have stopped a lot of these large-scale massacres from occurring. but a national movement on assault weapons and clips as with well. i think we're at the beginning of it. people have to understand it doesn't happen in three months. it happens over years. >> fair enough, julian. karen, on tuesday the nra released its score shield report, a magnificent dopus.

"mother jones" magazine noticed something wrong about several of its assertions. for instance, the report would seem to claim that only guns and not lethal means -- nonlethal -- means save lives. on page 48 they mentioned a 2010 shooting in minnesota that killed six people all because the 16-year-old shooter was able to blast through interior windows. however, a quick google search finds the child who carried the gun didn't fire a single shot and no one died. now, you know what, karen, i'm not surprised at the least it's full of lives. >> i was going to say, martin, come on. >> i shouldn't have read their report in detail? >> no, well, i mean -- i'm sure it is a great work of fiction. no doubt. i mean, look, here's the bigger picture here. i mean, obviously there are -- we should expect that it would fot be full of untruths because, again, the arguments that they're making do not have -- are not grounded in true reality as we were just discussing. but the bigger issue here is, as julian was pointing out, we have to stay on offense. we cannot accept the narrative

that somehow we're losing on this issue. we're not losing on this issue. a majority of americans agree with these points and it's going to be up to members of congress to have their backbone in order to make sure we get these things passed. we're not losing. and this report, the fact there are fallacies in this report further shows the level of desperation we're now seeing from the nra because they know that they're losing. >> okay. >> that's a very -- >> julian, notwithstanding the fact that in the public arena, 90-plus percent of people believe background checks should be instituted and implemented. notwithstanding all of that, karen makes the salient point, and that is, are the people behind her in the congress going to listen? >> i think it's going to take time. it's going to take time for every national movement takes time. every national movement requires that elected officials lose their seats. and i think this report on school safety, again, is -- should fall on deaf ears in the congress because, look, you had in virginia tech you had a s.w.a.t. team, 3 2 people were

killed. in aurora you had police arriving on the scene 90 seconds after the attack. 70 people were shot. ft. hood, which is the most armed encampment in the world -- >> yes. >> -- you had a mass murder occur there. in columbine, you had a security officer. the 13 members on this committee all have a financial interest in security. we're talking about 140,000 schools and universities that would need requirement. $35 billion. it's not realistic. i think these things are going to fall on deaf ears. >> go ahead, karen. >> let's also remember, again, i think as not only the mass shootings we're talking about but the shootings that happened recently in texas point out, we have to have a multipronged approach to this problem. it's not about, okay, we're going to put guards in the school then we're done, don't have to worry about it. i mean, again, if you look at each of these incidents, there are a number of different places where systems broke down, where whether it was a background check, whether it was how was someone able to amass not only the weapons but the ammunition.

you know, whether it was a mental health issue, whether it was the school. there are lots of issues here. i think, again, we cannot accept, you know, this idea well they're going to put out a school report and that's somehow the sufficient answer. not the least of which, by the way, they don't even get into the liability issues of having armed, loaded weapons in a school with children. >> no, i think that's exactly right, and i agree we need a multi-pronged solution. my point was that security doesn't work in any of these instances. and if you look at the -- >> sure. >> that's the truth. that's the evidence. >> that is the evidence. if you look at the last 41 mass murders, 34 of them would have been able to get their assault weapons, in most cases, assault weapons were used without background checks. the single factor involved, and, again, turning small-scale assaults into large-scale massacre was the availability of clips and assault weapons. that is the single factor and the absence of those things would have stopped those mass murders from being turned into mass murders. maybe we would have had a small-scale assault, but not the kind of mass murder.

incidentally, final point, congratulations to karen on her new show as well. >> okay. maybe the nra should submit their report for the man book apprised of fiction. julian epstein, karen finney, thank you both. coming up, actor jeremy ayans is now sure to win a razzie. stay with us. >> if you want to talk about violence in our society, let's get serious for real and let's talk about guns. why is it, why is it that guns in the movies are bad, but they're okay in our streets? can anybody explain that to me? i don't think so. i've always kept my eye on her... but with so much health care noise, i didn't always watch out for myself. with unitedhealthcare, i get personalized information and rewards for addressing my health risks. but she's still going to give me a heart attack. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.

♪ the middle of this special moment and i need to run off to the bathroom. ♪ i'm fed up with always having to put my bladder's needs ahead of my daughter. ♪ so today, i'm finally talking to my doctor about overactive bladder symptoms. [ female announcer ] know that gotta go feeling? ask your doctor about prescription toviaz. one toviaz pill a day significantly reduces sudden urges and accidents, for 24 hours. if you have certain stomach problems or glaucoma, or can not empty your bladder, you should not take toviaz. get emergency medical help right away if your face, lips, throat or tongue swells. toviaz can cause blurred vision, dizziness, drowsiness and decreased sweating. do not drive, operate machinery or do unsafe tasks until you know how toviaz affects you. the most common side effects are dry mouth and constipation. talk to your doctor about toviaz.

there's a lot i had to do... watch my diet. stay active. start insulin... today, i learned there's something i don't have to do anymore. my doctor said that with novolog® flexpen, i don't have to use a syringe and a vial or carry a cooler. flexpen® comes prefilled with fast-acting insulin used to help control high blood sugar when you eat. dial the exact dose. inject by pushing a button. no drawing from a vial. you should eat a meal within 5 to 10 minutes after injecting novolog® (insulin aspart [rdna origin] injection). do not use if your blood sugar is too low, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause symptoms such as sweating shakiness, confusion, and headache. severe low blood sugar can be serious and life-threatening. ask your health care provider about alcohol use, operating machinery, or driving. other possible side effects include injection site reactions and low potassium in your blood. tell your health care provider about all medicines you take and all of your medical conditions. get medical help right away if you experience serious allergic reactions such as body rash, trouble with breathing, fast heartbeat, or sweating.

flexpen® is insulin delivery my way. covered by most insurance plans, including medicare. find your co-pay cost at myflexpen.com. ask your health care provider about novolog® flexpen today i took something for my sinuses, but i still have this cough. [ male announcer ] a lot of sinus products don't treat cough. they don't? [ male announcer ] nope, but alka seltzer plus severe sinus does it treats your worst sinus symptoms, plus that annoying cough. [ breathes deeply ] ♪ oh, what a relief it is [ angry gibberish ] stay with us. the day's top lines are coming up. [ male announcer ] if she keeps serving up sneezes... [ sneezing ] she may be muddling through allergies.

try zyrtec®. powerful allergy relief for adults and kids six years and older. zyrtec®. love the air. her long day of pick ups and drop offs begins with arthritis pain... and a choice. take up to 6 tylenol in a day or just 2 aleve for all day relief. all aboard. ♪ let's say you pay your guy around 2% to manage your money. that's not much you think. except it's 2% every year. does that make a difference? search "cost of financial advisors" ouch. over time it really adds up. then go to e-trade and find out how much our advice costs. spoiler alert: it's low. really? yes, really. e-trade offers investment advice and guidance from dedicated, professional financial consultants. it's guidance on your terms, not ours. that's how our system works. e-trade. less for us. more for you.

from april fool's and easter bunnies to the bully brigade. here are today's top lines, the week in review. >> caution. you're about to enter the no spin zone. >> looks like you're expecting somebody else. >> give easter bunny a big round of applause. >> there's a large bunny behind you, by the way. ♪ party rockers in the white house tonight ♪ >> are we ready to do this? >> at the end of the day he's not on the ticket. >> you're upset that the daughters went on vacation? that's insane. >> extinction has already started. >> republican party is finished anyway. >> the leadership of the nra has done a very good job. >> universal background checks, i think, is a bridge too far. >> nothing we're talking about would have prevented newtown. >> have you read the 255-page report? >> if there's any page you want to refer to, i'm happy to go straight to it. >> why is he going to colorado? >> just want to see some progress. >> why is he going to connecticut? >> how do you know his mother

would not have obeyed the law and limited the magazine clip? >> you can change magazine clips in a second. >> kind of like marriage. why not have three men and one woman or why not, you know, somebody has a love for an animal. >> you're a smart man. you're a neurosurgeon. you get one of those things is not like the other. >> dr. ben carson put his size 12 foot in his mouth. >> what is it with you people and the animal [ bleep ]? >> blah, blah, blah, orgy in the barn. >> feel pretty confident no reasonable person can watch that video and quibble with that coach's firing. >> this story kind of infuriates me. i kind of like old-fashioned dis fly discipline. >> talk about the wussification of americans. >> i got the paddle in high school. >> my father hit me with a belt. i turned out okay. >> seriously? you're okay? >> let's get right to our panel now. krystal ball and toure are one-half of "the cycle" which appears just before this show. they're jealous for more

airtime. angela rye is a political strategist, principle of impact strategies. we're delighted, angela, you've joined us. for that reason, i'm going to start with toure. i have a very simple question for you, toure. why do so many conservatives say such ludicrous things about same-sex marriage? i mean, louie gohmert goes to bed every night dreaming about, what, having sex with donkeys? what's the issue here? >> i have to scrub that image out of my head. i don't know how i'm going to do that. it begins with a religious descent to same-sex marriage which makes them say this is immoral, which makes them link it to other immoral things. >> there's no way in the old testament or new testament where humans are having sex with donkeys. i don't understand what you're talking about. >> i haven't read the whole thing. >> i have. >> when you talk about if this is immoral, we're going to say let's link it to other immoral things. the nation has moved fairly quickly on this issue over the past ten years.

things they're saying now 10, 15, 20 years ago would have been acceptable. people like us would have been disgusted but been in the minority. now americans come over to this side, and now it sounds ridiculous. >> here's eric cantor, house majority leader appearing very comfortable about being behind the curve on this issue. take a listen to him. >> i think that we all are part of a very diverse country and appreciate the freedoms we are giving here as americans. but part of the deal here is we got to be tolerant of other people. >> no one's asking you to marry another -- >> well, and -- >> you're looking at me like maybe we could -- i mean, i've been a big admirer of you for -- but nobody's asking them to marry -- >> so, angela, he says -- he's basically asking us to accept an opposition opposition to same-sex marriage, isn't he? that's what cantor's saying. >> well, to be clear, eric cantor is right there is freedom of speech in this country.

however, when your freedom of speech or your opinion takes the place of oppression, when you begin to restrict other people's rights, that's when it becomes a problem. it's no longer just about an opinion or tolerances of differences in that way. it's about really creating a problem for folks who deserve to have equal rights and justice. that's the problem. >> what do you think, krystal? >> i think the republicans have run out of arguments here, right? >> they've not run out of absurd, offensive comments, have they? plenty of those. >> they've still got those. on this and any other number of issues. >> yeah. >> they've run out of any sort of compelling argument and it's amazing to see how uncomfortable cantor gets with this whole line of questioning and really just wants to change the subject. and they won't let him. you know, if you think about progression of this issue, back in 2000, 2004, this was something the republican party conservatives wanted to talk about. they wanted to make this case. they were running on it. >> absolutely. >> 2008, sort of neither side

really wanted to talk about it. and now we're at a place where it's a winning issue for democrats. the public has come down on the side of equality and republicans have no answer other than to say something totally absurd and offensive or change the subject. >> it's hard to defend bigotry. it's hard. >> hang on a second, i don't want to restrict bigotry to politicians because the great thespian, jeremy iyans, himself, an aacademy award winner, has offered a particular and unique view of the issue. take a listen. >> could a father not marry his son? >> well, there are laws against incest. >> it's not incest between men. if i wanted to pass on my estate without death duties, i could marry my son and pass on my estate to him? >> your reaction to that, toure. >> that was, perhaps, the dumebest thing i have ever

heard. >> except that he does seem to be emphasizing that republican position which is gay people want to marry solely for the benefits. >> right, right, right. >> the financial benefits. >> right. as if that's the main thing. what we're really dealing with is gay people trying to create families, the commitment, trying to be part of the american family and being blocked from that. and, you know what, the benefits issue is one thing, but that happens relatively in private. that's your relationship to your government. when you're able to go out socially and say this is my husband, right, or this is my wife, and have people know that your relationship is respected by the church, by the nation, as fully equal to a straight relationship, that matters. right? rather than saying, your gay relationship is worth less than our straight relationship. you can't ascend to that highest level. that to me is romantic segregation. >> krystal? >> i hate to dignify the argument by even directly engaging with it, but on this tax benefits issue, what's different about gay couples doing this versus straight couples? you know, a man and a woman

having a sham marriage to get the benefits versus -- i mean, they weren't concerned about this before. suddenly when it's two guys, it's a big problem. >> angela, i want to come to you because the president called the california attorney general pamela harris to apologize for a distraction after referring to her as a good looking woman. do you think he needed to apologize? >> absolutely not. i think this has been blown completely out of proportion. >> no? >> no. first of all, pamela harris and the president are good friends. in the midst of the compliment he gave her, he talked about her being hardworking, dedicated and brilliant. he also said after she's the most good looking attorney general in the united states, that she is his good friend. i think we should stop manufacturing issues particularly on the left when we have real serious problems we've got to deal with right now. >> but krystal, hasn't this particular individual had to fight some of that critique throughout her career? >> yeah, i, you know, i see both sides of this. >> right. >> because on the one hand, you

know, no harm was meant by it. on the other hand, real damage is done to women candidates in particular when the language used to describe them is different than used to describe men. too much focus on appearance, dress, hair. those things do undermine a woman. so i understand why there was a public outcry about it. >> well, thank quyou so much to the hottest panel on american television. krystal ball, toure and angela rye. toure has a fantastic new book out "i would die for you: why prince became an icon." there you are. i did it. >> thank you, sir. next, the state senator who wants a family's assistance tied to a child's academic performance. get an "a" or no dinner. seriously. [ speaking foreign language ] asional constipation,

diarrhea, gas, bloating? yes! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap each day helps defend against these digestive issues... with three strains of good bacteria. [ phillips' lady ] live the regular life. phillips'.

[ phillips' lady ] live the regular life. at tyco integrated security, we consider ourselves business optihow?rs. by building custom security solutions that integrate video, access control, fire and intrusion protection. all backed up with world-class monitoring centers, thousands of qualified technicians, and a personal passion to help protect your business. when your business is optimized like that, there's no stopping you. we are tyco integrated security. and we are sharper.

today's less than spectacular jobs numbers are further evidence that the recovery is still painfully slow. but the effect of the economic downturn on the nation's children is even more severe. while our children make up just 24% of the total u.s. population, they account for 36% of those currently living in poverty. which is why a new proposal from a state senator in tennessee may strike you as a little odd. stacey campfield wants to reduce assistance to poor families by 30% if their children are not academically successful. mr. campfield's proposal, what one might call study, has already cleared committees in both chambers of tennessee's state legislature. and a vote scheduled for next week in the state senate will be another important step toward this proposal becoming law.

and i'm delighted to say we're now joined by tennessee state senator, stacy campfield, good afternoon, sir. >> martin, it's always good to be on this show. unfortunately, you started off with so many lies, it's going to be definiteifficult for me to g through. >> are you using temporary assistance to needy families as a kind of financial motivation, if you like? incentivizing cash payments to encourage kids to study? is that your thinking? >> well, first off, it has absolutely nothing to do with food stamps or food credits or wic or school lunches or anything having to do with food. >> mr. campfield -- >> it is a straight cash payment. >> as you know, sir -- >> it has nothing to do with children's performance in school, martin. it has nothing to do with child performance in school. it's based on the parent getting involved in the child's life. if a parent goes to, enters the child, a failing child, who is not getting out of poverty because he doesn't have an education, if he enters the child in a tutoring program, if the parent enters the child, if the parent does a parenting

course, or if they even show up at two parent/teacher conferences, they're except, they get the cash. this has nothing to do with food. >> as i understand it, just so i can understand this, are you using the idea of this particular payment as a motivational force? that's what i'm asking you. >> i'm using it to mote vase pare motivate parents to be involved in their children's education. yes, i am. if you look at every study, a parent involved in education helps. >> if anyone knows about the motivating power of money, it's a politician. given these are families who are already in desperate need, why would you harm them even further? i mean, as you know -- let's just pause for a second. just allow me to ask you the question. >> go ahead. >> as you know, many of these families are already the subjects of poverty. they have a lack of available cash. your idea of reducing the amount of they receive by 30%, won't that just have a devastating

effect on people who are already in a precarious position? l let's be honest. >> well, the number one way to get out of poverty is not through giving a man a fish for the rest of his life. it's getting him an education. >> i'm sorry, mr. campfield, you have to -- mr. campfield, i'm trying to ask you a series of questions, and the question i just asked you -- >> i'm trying to answer. >> you were not answering question. allow me to repeat it. what i am saying is this. >> okay. go ahead. >> if you reduce the amount of money that would be received by these families by 30%, would this not make people who are already vulnerable in difficult circumstances, would it not make their situation even worse? >> the goal is not to reduce anyone's payment. the goal is to get parents involved their children's education so the kids don't end up being the next generation of poverty. you can't get people out of poverty without education. >> i just asked you your

motivation. you explained that in the first question. i then asked you a second question which is, and it's very simple, answer it yes or no and we'll move on. if you remove 30% of the moneys that these families receive, these families that are already vulnerable, will you not be further making their circumstances even more difficult? yes or no? >> no. because it will -- >> no. okay. >> no, it will not because all the money stays within the program. all the money goes back to other people who are willing to help their children get an education. >> okay. do you understand, sir, the coalition between hunger and a child's academic performance? that hungry children who attend school -- >> yes, that is why -- >> hungry children who attend school without eating have slower memories. >> yes, i do. py i afree. >> they have lower math scores. more likely to repeat a grade. they cause problems for other students. >> yes, i understand. >> if you agree with all of that -- >> this is why none of this has to do with food stamps, martin.

>> this is money, this is cash families use on many, many occasions to purchase food. how can you -- >> martin, there's eight different food programs. none of this is touching any of them. >> sir, this is money that those families receive. in your state, it's up to $180 a month for a family of three. i am asking you this question. if there is a correlation between a child's academic performance and their food intake, why in god's name would you want to reduce that money by 30% in light of the fact that you want to see an improved academic performance? that makes no sense to any of us. >> no, you're right, marty, it doesn't. that's whey i don't touch any food program whatsoever. there are eight different federal food programs. this touches none of them. >> the house -- >> we're not having a problem with people getting food because of this program. this is not a food program. this is a cash program. >> that's actually not what families say. let me just put this to you. the house democratic chair in

tennessee, mark turner, called your proposal, and i'm quoting him, "bigotry at its best." do you have a better description for your proposal than that? "bigotry at its best." >> i call it -- sure, i call it parental involvement at its highest level. and getting people out of poverty. something that's working in over 40 different countries and having spectacular results. you look the at brazil who did it. they went from an average third grade education to, i believe, about 70% or 80% high school graduates now. >> the brazilian method of doing that was actually incentivizing and not penalizing. it's entirely different. i'm afraid, sir, we've run out of time. i'm delighted you've come on. >> there's a huge difference. this is why, see, you can't take a criticism, martin. >> i can't take a criticism? >> unfortunately you can't take -- >> i'm very happy -- this is not a criticism. >> you cannot face the facts. >> mr. campfield, this is not about a criticism of me. i'm very happy for you to say whatever you like about me. what i'm concerned about is how families -- >> okay, marty, you're delusional. >> families in poverty are

supposed to be penalized by their children not eating because you -- >> they're not. >> -- and individuals like you are withdrawing money from those families. that's all i'm asking you. >> no, they are not. martin, this has nothing to do with food. this has nothing to do with that. it's about parental involvement, getting parents involved. if you're a parent involved in your child's education, the child will succeed. >> as you know full well, there are democrats in your own house who say this is bigotry at its best. state senator stacy campfield. >> they cannot argue the fact. >> thank you, sir. next, as north korea continues to push, how will the united states respond? but first, the cnbc market wrap. good afternoon, bertha. >> good afternoon, martin. the dow falling 40 points today. the s&p losing 6. the nasdaq was off more than 21 points. all three averages actually lost ground for the week and the big reason why, the u.s. added just 88,000 jobs in march according to the laborer department. that was well below the

expectation. the unemployment rate fell slightly to 7.6% but for the wrong reason. only 500,000 americans stopped looking for work last month. participation in labor hasn't been this low since 1979. martin will be right back. [ male announcer ] at his current pace, bob will retire when he's 153, which would be fine if bob were a vampire. but he's not. ♪ he's an architect with two kids and a mortgage. luckily, he found someone who gave him a fresh perspective on his portfolio. and with some planning and effort, hopefully bob can retire at a more appropriate age. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. by the armful? by the barrelful? the carful? how about...by the bowlful? campbell's soups give you nutrition, energy, and can help you keep a healthy weight. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do.

constipated? yeah. mm. some laxatives like dulcolax can cause cramps. but phillips' caplets don't. they have magnesium. for effective relief of occasional constipation. thanks. [ phillips' lady ] live the regular life.

we saw more scare tactics today from north korea's leader kim jong-un. mr. king's government now says it can no longer guarantee the safety of foreigners in north korea. it advised foreign embassies to request help with evacuating before a deadline of next wednesday. this comes after mr. kim said that he will launch preemptive nuclear strikes against the united states. it also comes as that nation releases new video of their young leader takie ining in a l target practice with north korean soldiers. joining us live from seoul, nbc's jim maceda.

jim, foreign governments with embassies in north korea face a tough decision now that the government in pyongyang says it can't guarantee their safety. are they all now just going to leave? >> reporter: hi, martin. well, some may leave. the russians said they were still trying to figure out the text of the message that was sent to all those embassies. but the brits, you'll be happy to know, were very clear about it. they called the communication just more escalating rhetoric from the north koreans who are intent on making it sound as if the threat were coming from the united states rather than from north korea. and the british embassy went on to say that it had no plans to leave north korea. we'll see what some of the other two dozen or so foreign embassies in pyongyang do. but this was such an underhanded threa threat, threat, marten, on the part of the north korean government. i'd be surprised to see a mass exodus. >> let me ask you about a report in today's "new york times," jim. it say s north korea may have

moved one of its missiles perhaps preparing it for launch. it probably can't reach the united states, of course, but is there a fear that north korea might try something rash in the region, itself? perhaps targeting a nation closer to north korea? like the south? >> reporter: well, first of all, it looks like not one, but two medium-range missiles have been picked up by western intelligence. they're called musidons. they were transported to northeast korea by train. fixed to mobile missile launchers then concealed presumably to be used later. now, these rockets or missiles have a range of about 2,000 miles. so they could reach the u.s. -- they could likely reach the u.s., i should say, but they could reach guam, for instance, in the pacific. and certainly they could do damage to the u.s. and south korean targets in the region. the problem is these missiles haven't been tested before.

so it doesn't look like it would be an attack. it looks like it would be shaping up to be another in a series of missile tests that go back now to 2006. >> jim maceda reporting live from seoul. thanks so much, jim. and we'll be right back. zap technology. arrival. with hertz gold plus rewards, you skip the counters, the lines, and the paperwork. zap. it's our fastest and easiest way to get you into your car. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz.

i've always had to keep my eye on her... but, i didn't always watch out for myself.

with so much noise about health care... i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics. they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. her long day of pick ups and drop offs begins with arthritis pain... and a choice. take up to 6 tylenol in a day or just 2 aleve for all day relief. all aboard. ♪ all aboard. we asked total strangers to watch it for us. thank you so much. i appreciate it. i'll be right back. they didn't take a dime. how much in fees does your bank take to watch your money?